But the fact that he consistently gets FP on stories and manages to slip something about how great Microsoft is into the post somewhere, and note that his 3-paragraph essay took him < 1 minute to write and post...

I'm not a Microsoft employee, or a particularly big fan of the company either. But I completely agree with the OP; MS is happy just knowing that you're buying their product. They're not interested in knowing that you have trouble getting it up so they can serve you Cialis ads.
The biggest thing you gotta worry about MS is that if the product you bought isn't doing too well they'll kill it off and leave you hanging.

Vista is crap. It's bloatde, not secure, can hand file moves well, and well a great deal of many thing.

And I am not a Windows hater, I just calls them as I sees them. AS a Windows developer it is in my best interests t be critical and realistic of their OS. Win 7 and XP are both superior to Vista, but for different reasons.

Driver support is spotty with windows too, in a different way: old hardware does not get updated drivers at the next iteration.So you either choose among less peripherals supported by FOSS drivers or keep throwing out perfectly working stuff because it becomes impractical to use.

I hate vista because I used it for 30 minutes on a new laptop and seen my old laptop with half cores and bus length (32bit 1 core) was noticeably faster.That vista became usable after more than a year under a different name is irrel

"isn't shy to violate some privacy in the progress?"based on what? this speculative article?

" the payment processing company only gets the total value of items."And where you processed it. Since it ALREADY has all the data it could want about you it doesn't really need more. If it wanted it could very easily find out what you purchased.

Since I have gotten a call from my credit card company asking my if I had made a purchase from across the US, t

Apple has actually fought with (and of course won) third party vendors on the App store to protect customer privacy. It isn't just that 30% fee the vendors hate - they want your data too! Well sorry, you can't have it on iOS. In fact, one of the great selling points for the iOS ecosystem (vs Android) is you can just enter your credit card with Apple, and be able to use it for all purchases, simply by entering a password. No re-entering your info for every purchase, no privacy or data mining risks.

That's pretty much how the Android market works too... Apps aren't allowed to link to their own web page to force an order (the same as they aren't on iOS). You have to confirm the order with your password & the order goes through Google Checkout without you having to enter any other information.
Google also asks for a 30% cut, but the difference is that they don't FORCE you to use the Market.
So, your point is pretty much complete FUD.

What? I use a bunch of Google stuff and don't really worry about it. I block Google Analytics, but that is because it really drags on a slow connection.

My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.

My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.

As I've pointed out a number of times before, it's neither.

See their S1 filing with the SEC. It's actually a well defined bound on their business practices which they call out to investors in order to ensure that they can bring their business practices in line with that bound and not run afoul of stockholder lawsuits.

For practical purposes, the problem with Google's "don't be evil" is that they take it as a given in everything they do, thus they engage in a broad number of practices which appear to be dangerous precursors to the abuse of public trust. It's not that they are abusing that trust, it's just that they're putting themselves in a position where they could. I think the Google experiment is a fascinating one, and I really wonder how it will play out. If they continue to gather potentially sensitive user data and continue to shepherd it with user controls and transparency, Google could potentially serve as the model on which we develop (here, in the U.S.) our analog in the data world for the financial world's concept of "fiduciary responsibility." Other countries have begun to try to formulate this on their own, but the U.S. has been highly reluctant to place such controls on data.

I'd very much like to feel as comfortable giving Google every detail of my personal data as I feel in giving my life savings to, say, Fidelity Investments. I don't worry about what Fidelity could do with that money because we have about 300 years worth of law and precedent that have worked out what a fiduciary should and should not do. With data, we're just starting to walk down that path, so paranoia isn't a bad thing. it's just that we should keep in mind that the companies that are forging that frontier are no more our enemies than a bank or other fiduciary. Those institutions can do the wrong thing (as evidenced recently) as well, but we punish them when they misuse our money, not when they file a patent for storing or transferring it.

No it will get sold to insurance companies who will use it against you to charge more. It will get sold to businesses who you want to work for. They will say because of A, B, and C, and you have problems you will not be hired, we do not hire deviants. All deviants have A, B, and C you know, we just can't afford the risk of you becoming one once in our employ. They already have control of laws, it's called lobbying dumbass.

But, Google doesn't actually sell YOU to the companies. The companies give them a target demographic & Google gets ads to them.

Your information isn't going directly to the companies, unlike when you use Facebook & click 'Like' buttons all over the place. I use Facebook because it's useful, but I check my privacy settings on a weekly basis (they seem to have a way of magically changing) & generally accept the fact that nothing said on FB is secure or private in the least.

I think the gist of this was that Google is digging for data that isn't normally allowed for transactions. Google is in the business of mining data and profiting off of it. It becomes dangerous when they start expecting such concessions without people realizing the risks involved. I've become more hesitant to use their services over the last year due to stories like these. At some point they have to at least be making people nervous with the various online activities. they end up collecting information for

Rather than just throwing out "Google evil Big Brother 1984 OMGBBQWTF!?!!" why don't we read TFA:

"rumors have some more tangible back-up in the form of a patent application..."

What this means is that Google has applied for a patent. Not surprisingly, their business strategy isn't strongly present in this application. That said, let's continue:

Payment systems generally [receive] from the merchant the authorization request for the total payment. Customers are not directly involved.

Under the system described in this filing, all information goes through the customer’s device to the broker, which now can keep a running tab of everything the person charges.

This is all based on the assumption that the patent describes an exact 1:1 mapping to the business model that Google plans to employ, and it also assumes that Google is the broker, and it also assumes that transactional details as presented to th

However, Uncle CEO will give Big Brother the data at any time and will also expel from the Uncle CEO community any people that Big Brother doesn't like if Big Brother wishes so. So Big Brother will remain in charge.

I have no clue where your conclusions came from. Digitalized receipts? The point I got was Google's aim is intercepting more information in the typical transaction, which they will no doubt surrender to the government at the mildest accusation or repackage as customer profiling data for other merchants.

I currently view these YRO stories as pieces in a game, and games Like combos. Try the combo of this purchase system with Microsoft's neat new proposed law that anyone who purchases something which had a pirated copy of software anywhere in the supply chain can be sued. Or mate it with Microsoft's patent-applied "Database of Blackmail Details".

And for the crew that hope that securing communications is enough, I'm pretty sure that the items are presented on unique trackable webpages, so your choice of any 12

Want greatest privacy? Use cash.
Want to give up privacy for the convenience? Use mobile payment. And, if we know Google well enough, they'll most likely let you track your spendings in neat little infographics.
Obviously if you don't want your wife to know you bought a Fleshlight then don't use a credit card. But for mundane payments like a burger at McD, why the he'll not?

Good luck with that. Governments and corporations are working toward enforcing a cashless society with every passing year. There are places in meat-space where you can't even buy things with cash. There are places where buying big items in cash will get you investigated. Having large amount of cash (a few thousand) on your person can get you "reasonable suspicion" as a criminal.

Well, the most obvious example would be the Apple Store. Have you ever tried to pay cash for items, there? I bought my mom an iMac for mother's day last year when I was visiting home and they required a credit card. The time before that, I bought two 30" ACDs, an iPod, and two laptops. Was going to pay in cash. They would only take a credit card. As far as I know, that is a company-wide policy (based on my experiences and experiences I've read over the internet -- it is possible that I am completely incorre

Alas there is a tendency for real shops to stop supporting anything special. "But it online" is the answer to any question for a retailer nowadays. And if you buy it online, usually you will have to use some sort of electronic payment. In the Netherlands, this was taken up by banks by setting up "iDeal", which was sold to be convenient but was really introduced because the conditions transferred all the responsibilities to the buyer. So there you have it. Shops don't sell it, and on the net you're screwed.

Great, pragmatic reasoning. Makes perfect sense. Let's also tie the ownership of cars to voting republican. If you still want to vote for the democrats, feel free not to buy a car. Nobody forces you to have a car. Also, books should only be distributed by Google, who will require you to sign into your Google account before obtaining a book. If you don't want to use Google, no problem---just don't read any books. Nobody forces you to read books.

I hate to break it to everyone but the last time I ran an online store the Merchant Account processors required that I submit everything. The persons info, CC# ISV, list of items being purchased, etc. I was running a lab supply company and the Merchant Account processor would review my sales every month and cut off my ability to process CC's. Seems that Petri dishes, syringes, and beakers are considered "Drug Paraphernalia" and if they see them they cut you off. In a 1 year time I went through 4 Merchant providers and the only suggestion that was given was to shutdown the online site and publish catalogs and do mail order only as that processing does not require you to submit the items being purchased.
Needless to say, I shutdown the company. I dont trust the CC processors (Merchant account processors) There needs to be something done about them.

I'm with you! I can't figure out how a shape can be illegal anyway. Tommy Chong got arrested for selling bongs, which are essentially blown glass vases with a stem in the bottom. How in the world a particular shape of glass tube can be illegal is beyond me.

Same goes for shapes molded in latex. No clue in this world as to how you could rule a molded piece of rubber as obscene and therefore illegal.

Nannies of every stripe need to get over themselves and let other people govern their own lives. If you are

Patents have only one power. To prevent others from using what you patented. You don't have to do it. You might not want to. You might not be able to. So why file for a patent on something you'll never use?

Strategy. If you figure out two good ways to make something, but one is slightly better than the other, you patent both. But you're not going to bother making something the less desirable way, you just don't want a competitor to either. Or maybe for moral reasons, you don't want anyone to do it (lobotomy ray gun, whatever).

Or maybe you can't do what you patented for practical reasons. Patent interference, market conditions, the law (i.e. bald eagle killing machine).

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

More than that, the patent is a piece of paper that PREVENTS other people from doing this. Patenting evil ideas is actually a pretty clever way of making sure those ideas are never implemented (not that I place all that much faith in Google).

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues. I'd like to see insurance companies charge more to drivers who take their cars to neighbor Bubba's barn for repairs, and (by regulation, if necessary) charge less to people who

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues.

Going to a private, non-franchised mechanic with no record of doing
credible work means the insurance company's taking a bigger risk by
insuring you. After all, that's the historical purpose of insurance
companies: to mitigate financial risk by taking small payments from
many people to cover the large cost incurred by a few. If you're
contributing more to the total risk, you should contribute more to the
pool as well. Right now, it's an imperfect system. There's no way for
the insurance companies to know if

I have voluntarily provided my information to google in return for its services and I don't care what you guys think about it. The government takes our DNA at police stations, fingerprints and nude images at the airports (besides all data on paper), giving us nothing in return. I would be happy to have a mobile payment option provided by the same company I already deal with on a daily basis. If it doesn't work well, I'll try something else...